What has FGS "misinterpreted"? As far as I can tell, you've been going off on a bit of a an ol' tangent from other fannish sources on Vinga long before this rose to the level of being a 'greg'. Are you objecting to there being a 'greg', or merely that it wasn't everyone (Orlanthi everyone, maybe) else's material that got it in the neck?
> > That is, if that's the sort of diversity you're suggesting -- your
> > pronouncements on this topic have been just as 'ex cathedra' as the
>
> So what?
So, it looks more like a rearguard action than a principled stand you're taking on 'diversity'. The odd 'IMG' or what-not might clarify that you were defending your own Glorantha/game, rather than rubbishing other people's.
[diversity :: good]
> > I'd think that'd go without saying, but then again, it's
> > probably worth saying every so often just to keep in practice.
> No, it doesn't go without saying. There do seem to be people so obsessed
> with getting an "official line" that they daren't take a step without
> authorization.
I'll say it a few more times if it'd make you feel better. Anyone else want to join in?
But before I get entirely enmired in meta-issues: it doesn't seem likely that Garhound has 'diverged' all by itself from Sartarite orthodoxy, but equally, I wouldn't go so far to say that Sartar need be an entirely monolithic mythic structure in the first place! Thus if Garhound (say) were predominantly settled by some clan that had a variant Vinga myth, then we neatly dispose of any problem with having too large a variation within an implausible space or time. (Or at least, move the alleged 'problem' back and around somewhat.)
Believe me, we play in Sartar and some of our neighbours believe some quite _barking mad_ things. And they have the nerve to cast up about us, too... On the plus side, none of 'em are ducks...
Slan,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail